Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bupivacaine vs. lidocaine: a comparison of local anesthetic efficacy in impacted third molar surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy, the duration of anesthesia, and the postoperative analgesia of lidocaine and bupivacaine and to determine any difference in hemodynamic parameters in patients who required impacted third molar removal.

Materials and methods

Thirty-eight patients between the ages of 18 and 40, with no systemic disease, were included in the study, with an indication of impacted lower third molar extraction. One of two local anesthetic agents (Marcaine and Jetokain Simplex) was randomly selected for tooth extractions. The parameters evaluated were the onset of anesthetic agent action, the duration of operation, the duration of postoperative analgesia, and postoperative visual analog scale scores. Hemodynamic parameters were observed and evaluated preoperatively and during the operation. All data were evaluated statistically.

Results

When the time of anesthesia onset was analyzed according to both anesthetic solutions, the difference was in favor of lidocaine (p = 0.01). The duration of action was longer in the bupivacaine group than in the lidocaine group (p = 0.00002). VAS values for the pain obtained during injection were lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.009).However, according to the results of our study, the postoperative analgesic efficacy of bupivacaine is similar to that of lidocaine (p = 0.087).

Conclusion

After evaluation of these results, we can recommend the use of lidocaine and bupivacaine safely in dentistry practice. But long-duration effect of bupivacaine and the rapid effect of lidocaine may make lidocaine more preferable.

Clinical relevance

It is important to determine the clinically effective and safe anesthetic solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Waite PD, Reynolds RR (1998) Surgical management of impacted third molars. Semin Orthod 4(2):113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Garcia Garcia A, Gude Sampedro F, Gandara Rey J, Gallas Torreira M (1997) Trismus and pain after removal of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55(11):1223–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90172-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berge TI (1989) The use of a visual analogue scale in observer assessment of postoperative swelling subsequent to third-molar surgery. Acta Odontol Scand 47(3):167–174. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358909007697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chukwuneke F, Onyejiaka N (2007) Management of postoperative morbidity after third molar surgery: a review of the literature. Niger J Med 16(2):107–112. https://doi.org/10.4314/njm.v16i2.37291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarkson CW, Hondeghem LM (1985) Mechanism for bupivacaine depression of cardiac conduction: fast block of sodium channels during the action potential with slow recovery from block during diastole. Anesthesiology. 62(4):396–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sztark F, Malgat M, Dabadie P, Mazat JP (1998) Comparison of the effects of bupivacaine and ropivacaine on heart cell mitochondrial bioenergetics. Anesthesiology. 88(5):1340–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Balakrishnan K, Ebenezer V, Dakir A, Kumar S, Prakash D (2015) Bupivacaine versus lignocaine as the choice of local anesthetic agent for impacted third molar surgery a review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 7(Suppl1):S23. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.155921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Calis AS, Cagiran E, Efeoglu C, Ak AT, Koca H (2014) Lidocaine versus mepivacaine in sedated pediatric dental patients: a randomized, prospective clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 39(1):74–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Overton DA, Gordon MK (2002) Injection pain of bupivacaine with epinephrine vs. prilocaine plain. J Am Dent Assoc 133(12):1652–1656. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wahl MJ, Overton D, Howell J, Siegel E, Schmitt MM, Muldoon M (2001) Pain on injection of prilocaine plain vs. lidocaine with epinephrine. A prospective double-blind study. J Am Dent Assoc 132(10):1396–1401; quiz 460. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kattan S, Karabucak B, Hersh EV, Korosto JM, Hunter P (2017) Do buffered local anesthetics provide more successful anesthesia over non-buffered solutions in patients requiring dental therapy? – a Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis." dental theses. 19. http://repository.upenn.edu/dental_theses/19

  12. Shandler L (1965) Mechanism of action of local anesthetics. J Am Dent Soc Anesthesiol 12(2):62–66

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Su N, Wang H, Zhang S, Liao S, Yang S, Huang Y (2014) Efficacy and safety of bupivacaine versus lidocaine in dental treatments: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int Dent J 64(1):34–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Branco FP, Ranali J, Ambrosano GMB, Volpato MC (2006) A double-blind comparison of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 0.5% levobupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine for the inferior alveolar nerve block. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101(4):442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hinkley SA, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers WJ (1991) An evaluation of 4% prilocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine and 2% mepivacaine with 1:20,000 levonordefrin compared with 2% lidocaine with:100,000 epinephrine for inferior alveolar nerve block. Anesth Prog 38(3):84–89

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Motamedi MHK, Gharedaghi J, Mehralizadeh S, Navi F, Badkoobeh A, Valaei N, Azizi T (2016) Anthropomorphic assessment of the retromolar nerve: anomaly or variation of normal anatomy? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45(2):241–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.10.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi P, Iwanaga J, Dupont G, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS (2019) Clinical anatomy of the nerve to the mylohyoid. Anat Cell Biol 52:12–16. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2019.52.1.12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Covino BG (1981) Physiology and pharmacology of local anesthetic agents. Anesth Prog 28(4):98–104

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Seymour RA, Walton JG (1984) Pain control after third molar surgery. Int J Oral Surg 13(6):457–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenquist JB, Rosenquist KI, Lee PK (1988) Comparison between lidocaine and bupivacaine as local anesthetics with diflunisal for postoperative pain control after lower third molar surgery. Anesth Prog 35(1):1–4

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Di Gregorio G, Neal JM, Rosenquist RW, Weinberg GL (2010) Clinical presentation of local anesthetic systemic toxicity: a review of published cases, 1979 to 2009. Reg Anesth Pain Med 35:181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Butterworth JF (2010) Models and mechanisms of local anesthetic cardiac toxicity. Reg Anesth Pain Med 35:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gregorio LVL, Giglio FPM, Sakai VT, Modena KCS, Colombini BL, Calvo AM, Sipert CR, Dionísio TJ, Lauris JR, Faria FA, Trindade Junior AS, Santos CF (2008) A comparison of the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 0.5% bupivacaine (both with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for lower third molar removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The anesthetic solutions used were provided by the researchers and the surgical fees were paid by the scientific research project. (project number: 2017-DİS-0003, scientific research project protocol no:6.101.2017.0022).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Oral Surgery Department, Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

    Ozlem Velioglu

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Oral Surgery Department, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

    Aylin Sipahi Calis & Huseyin Koca

  3. Faculty of Dentistry, Prosthetic Dentistry Department, İzmir Katip Celebi University, Izmır, Turkey

    Emre Velioglu

Authors
  1. Ozlem Velioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aylin Sipahi Calis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Huseyin Koca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emre Velioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aylin Sipahi Calis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Ege University Faculty of Medicine’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision Number 17–2.1/52) and by Turkey Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Institution (File Number 16-AKD-62) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Velioglu, O., Calis, A.S., Koca, H. et al. Bupivacaine vs. lidocaine: a comparison of local anesthetic efficacy in impacted third molar surgery. Clin Oral Invest 24, 3539–3546 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03224-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03224-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation